User:WeijiBaikeBianji/IntelligenceCitations/SuggestionsPage

Add New References Here
Here is the subpage for your kind suggestions about the Intelligence Citations bibliography. Thanks for sharing. Feel free to tell me about references you know about. Also feel free to tell me about typos or other issues with the references shown in the section above. I will be updating continually, and will try to add as much bibliographic information to each entry, and as many new entries, as I can.

Kaufman et al
Fainites barley scribs 21:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the additional reference. I have a room piled with books here where I type, and I'll be trying to add a lot more myself in the next few days. I'll look up that one you just kindly shared right now. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

How many at 160+?
On page 18 of the bulletin by Deborah Ruf linked to above it states that in the US there are 933 people with IQs above 160. This is low by a factor of ten. Canon (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Canon, what is your source for a different estimate? I would be happy to correspond with Deborah Ruf about specific factual issues in the bulletin. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The z-score calculator here calculates that 160 IQ (4 standard deviations using standard deviation of 15) corresponds to a rarity of 1 : 31574, thus a population of 300 million will have about 10,000 people with 160 IQ or higher. Canon (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see what you are saying. Actually, for the issue of how many people have obtained what score on what brand of IQ test, the best answer is the empirical answer. Give a lot of people IQ tests, and tabulate their scores, and there will be some kind of answer to that question. Terman and colleagues found a higher-than-expected (on the basis of the kind of calculations you just linked to) number of persons scoring above IQ 160 on the second revision of the Stanford-Binet test. The figures can be found in the manual for the third revision (the first of several kinds of IQ tests that I have taken). Thanks for the follow-up to my question. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Out of curiosity: Terman found more high IQs than expected. Do you know whether this is still true after accounting for the Flynn effect? Paradoctor (talk) 06:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The norms were sufficiently poor for that version of the Stanford-Binet that it's not clear at all what should have been expected. I'll be looking up very specific references to the Flynn effect as that relates to identification of gifted persons as I begin editing articles more boldly. The sources are mostly already posted here; I'll look up the specific page references soon. I do still have a lot of references to add to the list here--they are piled all over my office. Thanks, by the way, for the subsection headings in this section. They are very helpful. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 06:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Feedback
It would be easier if the titles of the works were only hyperlinked if the article/book is freely-accessible. This is standard practice in Wikipedia. Also, what is your organization standard for multiple works by the same author? It seems easier to look through if they go by date in some manner (I prefer earliest to most recent), but I'm not clear about how you're currently doing it. II | (t - c) 18:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll check the Manual of Style and other Wikipedia editing guidelines; I thought that there is an order of precedence for what URLs to link to from books and journal articles, and that I'm following the best choices I can find. Right now the order of entries is just as it would be in the back of a thick treatise on psychology--alphabetically by author, with sole-authored books before co-authored books, and then chronologically within each author. Later on I'll post a pathfinder to the sources I think are most helpful to start with for editing the most Wikipedia articles. There are dozens of Wikipedia articles related to topics treated in these sources. Thanks for your comments. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The suggestion to only use link the titles if it is full-text does not seem to be in the MoS, or, unfortunately, in WP:CITE. It may be somewhat informal (let me know if you see a strict policy prescription) but it is fairly tightly followed in around WP:MED and has also been followed (and should continue to be followed) in the race and intelligence article. I suggested a while back that we adopt the practice of medical journals of link the words Free full-text in our references (see, for example, this random journal article), but the response that only full-text URLs were used anyway. It is very important that we distinguish between the articles which are freely-accessible and use those when we can, because otherwise it makes it much easier for unverified assertions to sneak into the article. So if you could work on separating the abstract and full-text URLs in this list it would help - would you mind if I went ahead and fix the ones that I examine? II  | (t - c) 07:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Another editor more experienced than I recently linked to WP:PAYWALL to point out that the best sources are the best sources, whether or not they are available for free. On that basis, I guess what you and she are both saying is to go ahead to link to full-text versions of the source, which I will endeavor to do as I go forward. And if you are sure you can drop in a full-text link where a link to an abstract now exists, you can go ahead and edit the citations list directly, as you find that convenient. (As you can imagine, I am taking care to keep copies of the list off-line, to be able to recover from vandalism, but I should always be able to tell if the list has recently been edited from my own watchlist.) Thanks for your friendly advice. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

A few suggestions
As long as we're making a list like this, I have a few suggestions for it. I may add more to this list if I think of others.

Books
Chronological order (?)

Eysenck, H. J. (1971) The I.Q. Argument. Summarizes the Jensen controversy, recommended as background reading in: The Relevance of Race Research, Thomas R. Ireland, Ethics, Vol. 84, No. 2 (Jan., 1974), pp. 140-145. Should note Eysenck does correlate race and IQ and was a former professor of Rushton's. (/pjv)

Jensen, A.R. (1973). Educability and Group Differences. This book, in which Jensen formally presents the hereditarian hypothesis about race and intelligence as a scientific theory, has now reached the level of a citation classic. Books which have become citation classics probably deserve to be included here.

Loehlin, J.C. (1975). Race Differences in Intelligence. I don’t know very much about this book, but David.Kane has highly recommended it. Based on what he’s said, it seems to be a fairly neutral and reliable presentation of the controversy about this topic.

Jensen, A.R. (1980). Bias in Mental Testing. Another citation classic from Jensen, in which Jensen argues that IQ tests are an accurate measure of mental ability, rather than underestimating the ability of groups that score below-average.

Flynn, James R. (1980). Race, IQ and Jensen. One of the best critical analyses of Jensen’s research about race and IQ, in my opinion, even if it’s slightly dated.

Sohan and Celia Modgil (1987). Arthur Jensen: Consensus and Controversy. Based on what I’ve read about this book, it seems to be a good selection of commentaries on Jensen’s work, from scholars who both agree and disagree with him. I don’t actually own a copy of it because of how expensive it is, but if anyone else can find one I think it would be really useful here.

Snyderman and Rothman (1988). The IQ Controversy, the Media and Public Policy. In addition to presenting the nature of the controversy on this topic, this book presents data about the views of researchers about it, based on a study published (by the same authors) the previous year.

Murray and Herrnstein (1994). The Bell Curve. Since this is probably the most famous book ever written related to race and intelligence, it seems like our list ought to include it.

Papers
Wigdor and Garner (1982). Ability Testing: Uses, Consequences, and Controversies (Part 1, and possibly part 2 also). This is a monograph published by the National Academy of Sciences assessing all aspects of the controversies regarding IQ testing. Among other topics, they address the question of whether IQ tests are culturally biased against minorities, and reach a conclusion about this similar to the one reached by Jensen (1980).

Linda Gottfredson (1997). Mainstream Science on Intelligence. Intelligence 24(1) 13-23. This is an editorial signed by 52 intelligence researchers about the current state of intelligence research. It started out as a 1994 editorial in The Wall Street Journal, but three years later it was republished in expanded form in the peer-reviewed journal Intelligence. (Obviously the peer-reviewed version is what Wikipeda would cite.) In terms of the conclusions it states, it’s pretty similar to the APA report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns, but I think both this and the APA report are worth including.

Ulric Neisser (1997). Never a Dull Moment. American Psychologist 52(1) 79–81. This is Neisser’s account of the task force that resulted in the publication of the APA report Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns. It provides Neisser’s perspective about a wide range of topics related to race and IQ.

Cochran and Harpending (2005). The Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence. Journal of Biosocial Science 38 (5), pp. 659–693. If the article is going to cover the above-average IQs of Ashkenazi Jews, this is the best-known paper about it. Cochran and Harpending summarize the existing data about this topic, and also present a new hypothesis about it.

--Captain Occam (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The Cochran/Harpending paper is presentation of a hypothesis, not any sort of scientific conclusion. Including unverified and unresearched speculation probably isn't worthwhile. aprock (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It’s published in a reliable source. There’s no Wikipedia policy that states we can’t include relatively new hypotheses, so long as they’re clearly described as such and cited to reliable sources. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's already included in Wikipedia. aprock (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestions. I have read several of those--either they are in the citations list already or about to be, as I do more typing here over the next few days. I am going to be increasingly stringent about reliable source guidelines for medicine-related articles with regard to articles on IQ testing, because many weighty decisions are made on the basis of (sometimes mistaken) conclusions from IQ testing. The citations list will probably err somewhat in the direction of inclusiveness, but I'll be adding a pathfinder section to it to point to the most reliable, most recent secondary sources by acknowledged experts. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Volkmar Weiss
This German author has written a lot on this subject: See, for example,

  --Julia Neumann (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)